Books

Congress has so far refused to move a bill, HR 38, which would end the civil-rights ban on honest citizens carrying firearms nationwide. It was introduced soon after president Trump was elected (January 3, 2017, assigned to the House Judiciary committee Jan. 12, no further action).

Now Congress may consider a different fast-track bill instead, H.R. 2940, proposed by representative Mo Brooks, (R-Ala.) that would grant legislators power to carry firearms nationwide and exclude the public. The bill has been described in the media but Rep. Brooks’ office notes the bill has not been publicly posted yet. Media reports are notoriously inaccurate when describing gun legislation. http://www.gunlaws.com/NewsAccuracy.htm

The likelihood of finding enough political capital for passing two similar firearms-carry bills is vanishingly small, experts say. The reasoning behind the new bill, according to Brooks on TV, is that elected congressional officials are at risk of attack and need to be armed. But members of Congress are statistically quite safe, when compared to the 30,000 American citizens who are murdered every year. Why the congressman believes there is a risk difference is unclear. Online reactions to the proposal have been vitriolic and called elitist.

Jesse Watters, who interviewed Brooks on the FOX News network, failed to ask him about the apparent lack of equal treatment under the law, if legislators get special exclusions from the bans that deny rights to the rest of Americans.

Watters instead praised the idea live on TV, and promised to follow its progress. There was no mention of the existing bill which would accomplish the same purpose, and empower the entire nation for defense against crime, or against the jihad currently being waged here and abroad. Brooks told Watters, “I wouldn’t have to worry about what the laws are,” a statement infuriating to gun-rights advocates. When asked in an informal survey, one high-profile political respondent who refused to be identified, replied, “It’s one of the things the British did that ignited the Revolution.”

In a “more guns” bill that alarmed even pro-gun-rights activists, representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) has proposed arming federal legislators to the exclusion of regular citizens. An existing bill, HR 38, to make the firearm-carry permits of normal American citizens valid nationally, has languished in Congress since the election of Donald Trump. It would accomplish the same thing, freeing legislators to arm themselves, without excluding the public.

Motivated by the attempted assassination of republican officials playing baseball in Virginia, the proposed Brooks bill would exempt elected federal officials from controversial and possibly unconstitutional laws banning their right to keep and bear arms in the nation’s capitol -- and anywhere else in the nation. The general public has suffered under such bans for decades, and has been assaulted and murdered by the tens of thousands annually while unarmed and defenseless.

The U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment requires equal treatment under the law, which representative Brooks’ bill would ignore, in arming his own colleagues and omitting the rest of the nation. Similar discriminatory laws have been overturned in the past. According to statements he made during an interview with Jesse Watters on FOX News, “I wouldn’t have to worry about what the laws are,” indicating he would be free to exercise his rights anywhere. The rest of the public would remain under draconian barriers to possessing firearms for self defense, or any other legitimate purpose.

When asked by Watters about arguments from anti-gun-rights activists and democratic legislators who say it would be too dangerous to let legislators be armed, since they might commit crimes or shoot people without cause, Brooks replied that’s “a ludicrous and inconsequential argument.”

Facts back him up, since the battle for gun rights has constantly confronted this line of thought, and the facts never bear it out. Every time a new firearm-carry law comes into effect, imagined fears of upcoming bloodbaths dominate news coverage, but the projected horrors turn out to be delusions that do not occur. Retractions are never seen, contributing to widely recognized journalism-credibility problems.

According to a Beltway lobbyist familiar with the situation, Brooks may have spoken in the heat of the moment, forgetful or unaware that HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 would accomplish the same purpose, without excluding the law-abiding public. That bill, sometimes referred to as Freedom To Carry (FTC), exempts lawful gun owners whose rights to carry are intact, with some conditions, against gun bans that start at state borders. Constitutional Carry is included in that bill. http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarryIndex.htm

In effect, congressman Brooks, his staffers, and anyone else in America whose Second Amendment rights are whole could be protected under HR 38. The clamor to enact HR 38 has grown since the baseball assassination attempt.

Because the political capital may not be available to enact two federal firearm-carry bills, one for an elite group and the other for the people, the smart course of action would be to put all energy behind the national Freedom To Carry bill, according to experts contacted for this news release.

###

[Backgrounder: Alan Korwin's Scottsdale-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, GunLaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. Gun Laws of America for news-media review is available on request, call 1-800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.”

Columbia Journalism Review, a formerly highly respected centrist commentator on the state of journalism, and now an integral part of the left-wing media produced at an alt-left college, is incredulous at the inability of leftists to maintain healthy numbers in cable and talk radio, where conservative voices hold sway.

CJR, March, 2017 -- "Between the nation's number one cable news network, a vibrant talk radio circuit led by Rush Limbaugh, and a bevy of websites ranging from the "alt-right" nationalism of Breitbart to the conspiratorial fever-swamp of Infowars, conservative media has found sustained success in ways liberal outlets have consistently failed to match. In a piece co-published by CJR and The Nation, Mark Hertsgaard argues that the left needs to find a response. https://www.cjr.org/special_report/creating-a-fox-news-for-the-left.php?Daily

"It is past time to build a countervailing independent-media infrastructure -- not to mimic Fox and Friends' delivery of propaganda disguised as news or to slavishly carry water for any political party or cause, but rather to bring professional, truth-telling journalism to large numbers of Americans, many of whom trust neither Fox and Friends nor the mainstream media to tell the truth," Hertsgaard writes.

[Hertsgaard overlooks the delivery of propaganda disguised as news from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS, or how they slavishly carry water for any political party or cause -- if it's left wing.]

"It's not as though the left hasn't tried (see below), but any attempt to replicate the success of Breitbart, let alone Fox News, requires serious funding and the sort of breakthrough success that has so far eluded liberal outlets."

[Hertsgaard recognizes that serious funding, and not free-market results, is needed.]

CJR summarizes some of the failed almost laughable attempts, which confound the left, including the failure of Air America, with an obituary from the New York Times.

Air America, the long-suffering progressive talk radio network, abruptly shut down on Thursday, bowing to what it called a "very difficult economic environment." NYT 1/21/10 "It would be a shame if the world sees the failure of Air America as representing the failure of progressive talk radio," said Michael Harrison, the editor of Talkers Magazine, a talk radio publication. Company's chairman, in an unusual statement for a left winger, said, "our company cannot escape the laws of economics." The broadcaster had a role in the careers of Rachel Maddow and Al Franken, both of whom hosted shows there before it failed. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/media/22radio.html?_r=1&

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

CJR and this writer lack even a glimmer of awareness that the left’s continued failure here has something to do with their audience, and its inability to hold up their end of the news bargain, not the content. If you’ve debated with these people, you’ve found they can’t think in a straight line, or at least not for very long, they have trouble connecting dots, change subjects whenever anything gets even slightly uncomfortable, can’t grasp concepts greater than a triangle and sometimes not that.

Listen to the few left-wing outlets out there -- it’s like listening to Bizarro in a Superman comic. The pathetic thing is people who have this mental incapacity tend to congregate together, and you get the heart of that party -- and listenership. Of course it fails. Gather enough and yes you can elect candidates -- to everyone’s detriment -- but run a financially sound, audience-dependent information-based broadcast... different problem.

The New York Times, in its unending legacy of anti-gun-rights editorials (June 1, 2017), is now praising a California gun law as "particularly important because it gives standing to concerned family members, not just the police, to seek a court ruling against possession of a gun by a violent abuser." (Violent abuser includes an annoying person*.)

Citing numbers from (unidentified) Michael Bloomberg's "gun-control" group, the paper claims of 156 mass shootings from 2009 to 2016, clearly an awful lot, 54% were traced to domestic violence, also a lot apparently. Support for the numbers, as usual is not provided, though Everytown for Gun Something gets plugged by name.

Doing the math shows 22 total events claimed per year, or 1 per month (54%), statistically insignificant. All unintentional death is of course tragic, a point on which everyone agrees, and which the Times makes repeatedly, sometimes several times in single sentences.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Everything has a cost. For whatever expense goes into preventing the single monthly event the Times appears so concerned about, funds are unavailable to address, for example, the 100,000 annual deaths multiple sources continue to report occur from iatrogenic death -- what the industry calls medical misadventure, or what the public calls doctor's mistakes. (And don't overlook nosocomial disabilities and death, maladies you catch in hospitals.)

The new California law would allow relatives and family members to disarm people by just asking a court to do so, without adequate representation for the person subject to the rights denial, in the hope the disarming would do more good than harm. Charging anyone for the 100,000 annual "mistake" deaths is virtually impossible. Californians are well known for their strained far-left anti-gun biases, where a good gun is no gun. Family members, under the new law, includes people you have dated, or ever stayed at your place.

California already enforces removal of Second Amendment rights for people charged, but not convicted of anything. If the Times was concerned with saving lives, and not disarming the public as critics claim their reporters stand in violation of their ethical oaths, it's obvious the paper might have a different focus.

The Times accepts mountains of expensive drug company and other medical advertising. They take no advertising from the firearms industry. But I digress.

*What you must claim against people in California to have their guns and ammo confiscated (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.6): "...a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose...

They actually gave you the whole story, but with their spin, and context, most folks probably missed the gist.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

A deep and insightful description of what's happening to the masses on the left ran front and center recently across most "news" media:

"Many feel left behind, left out, looked down on. Their anger and alienation has proved a fertile ground for false promises and false information. Their economic problems and cultural anxiety must be addressed or they will continue to sign up to be foot soldiers in the ongoing conflict between 'us and them'," this insightful critic observed.

"In the years to come there will be trolls galore, online and in person, eager to tell you that you don't have anything worthwhile to say or anything meaningful to contribute."

The blunt democrat critic said democrats have been flinging charges at the Trump administration, which are concocted and lack factual support. The speaker warned of "an all-out assault on truth" which is "necessary for democracy to survive."

These left-bashing statements and wake-up calls were in the speech delivered by... Hillary Rodham Clinton on May 27, 2017, who appeared unaware of the deplorable underpinning of her remarks. The media missed it too. If you didn’t know better, at times you might swear she was talking about herself and her supporters.

Ms. Rodham-Clinton spoke at the commencement at Wellesley College, an gender-segregated all-girls elite private school, which she attended in her youth. Lamestream reporters noted her prior attendance, but failed to point out that the school bans men from attending, yet has not been charged with discrimination. The all-female graduating class repeatedly cheered Rodham-Clinton's comments. The dim-light hypocrisy was almost late-night humor.

Joint effort to stop "gun violence" (at the expense of rights you currently enjoy)

Old familiar left-wing gun-control dialog -- but with fresh blood, legal eagles and "novel" strategies, the same misconceptions and prejudices, plus tens of millions to spend (dark money?) on "free" legal support.

Gun owners and local laws are their prime target

Stymied at federal level, they're targeting courts

The lamestream media told you:

The New York Times offered up one of its Sunday front pages and an entire back page to applaud the introduction of an army of elite law-firm lawyers, supported by fees from their clients, to do "free" work attacking the current status of the Second Amendment.

Diminishing rights Americans have didn't rise to the awareness of reporters or editors who produced the piece. They displayed instead hoplophobic blinders, obscuring their preoccupation with what they call gun violence, misdirecting attention from criminal behavior and crime.

The Times, literally gushing at the possibilities, lambasted the "gun lobby" for doing such a successful job in protecting the right to keep and bear arms at the local, state and federal legislative and judicial levels, then predicted a campaign of destruction for gun rights at the hands of the high-powered coalition of firms, allied with the usual anti-gun-rights suspects, naming many of the firms and their leaders.

Note: Mr. Brian makes a familiar "but" statement in the article, "... recognize that the Second Amendment is an important part of our Constitution... responsible gun owners... but... an epidemic of gun violence... law can save innocent lives without infringing..." Additional easily recognizable left-leaning gun-speak permeates the story.

The USS Gabrielle Giffords, a coastal waters ("littoral") combat vessel, named for the former congresswoman who was shot by a crazed mass murderer and survived, was commissioned recently in Texas, as it is set to begin operations.

The highly contentious nature of the vessel's naming is underscored by the fact that congresswoman Gifford's main claim to notoriety, aside from being the victim of a mass murderer, is her role as the poster child for anti-gun-rights campaigns funded in large measure by anti-rights bigot Michael Bloomberg and his cohorts. Her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, cooperates with the civil-rights discrimination efforts and appearances.

The partisan nature of her activities and the ship's commissioning were emphasized by the other notables at the event, including former second lady Jill Biden, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, and the most divisive figure in American politics today, the woman who singlehandedly set the political left on fire when her corrupt effort to gain the presidency met with stunning defeat, Hillary Rodham Clinton. No notable republicans attended the event, according to published reports.

This naming of this $350 million vessel set an odd precedent, for reasons that were unclear at press time. For the Navy to name a vessel after a person who campaigns to disarm the American public is a disgrace, according to experts familiar with the situation.

Science News is reporting "a long-hidden continent called Zealandia" but since no scientists are "officially" in charge of "rubber-stamp" naming new continents, a team of geologists is pitching the case for a new continent in a science journal, GSA Today. Zealandia is around 1.892 million square miles of continental crust, according to the report, about the size of the Indian subcontinent. But it's 94% underwater, surrounding New Zealand. So who knew.

"If we could pull the plug on the world's oceans," one researcher named Mortimer said, it would be clear this is a continent. The editors note "the landmass faces an uphill battle for continental status, though." I'm not making this up. Maybe if outside dark money funding poured in, the uphill battle could be more easily won. [OK, that was satire.] The main advocates say they'll just have to start using the name "and hope it catches on." A Vermont scientist notes how this illustrates "the large and obvious can be overlooked in science." And in journalism. The case for Zealandia has been built for more than a decade. For now Earth still has seven continents.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Science traditionally requires experiment, observation, evidence, reproducible results, double-blind testing, formulation and testing of hypothesis, all generally under the pseudo-defined scientific method -- not voting in an opinion poll and campaigning for favored terms, definitions and results. Doing so should disqualify a person from using the label "scientist," but since no scientists are "officially" in charge of "rubber-stamp" naming new scientists, the term can get used with some slacktivism.

The planet Pluto, you may recall, was voted out of our solar system by a slim majority of a small number of voting astrophysicists who couldn't agree on the science of the matter. The vote was 237 for removal out 424 voting, or 55.9%, in what now passes for science. The "news" media dutifully carried the story, giving "scientists" credibility, while sacrificing what little credibility the media had left.

Scientists today, some so bereft of reason and viable subject matter they are literally contemplating their navels, are getting funding for studies and work no rational person would ever justify, and publishing results scientists themselves are starting to question. Sometimes. Naming continents no one can see is a candidate for an award that has yet to be named. No indication of funding for this ten-year and ongoing expense was revealed in the report, but surely someone paid for it, or real work sat idle. Like serving fries with that burger.

Beyond the usual guns are bad, if people have them they'll casually kill each other, it's crazy to "let" people carry loaded guns around, as if someone has legitimate power to "let" you exercise your rights, and without carry permits, which we don't like anyway, and no training at all, you've got a formula for wholesale bloodshed disaster OMG my hair's on fire.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

24 States are planning to introduce or have already introduced Constitutional Carry laws in their legislatures:

In addition, America now has 14 states with enacted Constitutional Carry, for a total of 38, listed here with enactment date details. Is your state one? Learn how to move your state toward this freedom, like now: http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarryIndex.htm

Constitutional Carry restores the right to keep and bear arms to the public, by removing government interference with the exercise of this bundle of rights. It puts the identical requirements on buying, owning and possessing firearms as Americans face when buying or preparing food, purchasing clothes, going to religious institutions, riding bicycles, visiting friends, reading books, speaking publicly, obtaining knives and axes, or even having and raising children, namely, none, in a process called liberty. America is famous for it. Tell your legislators to support Constitutional Carry.

Laurie Roberts, Arizona Republic (Gannett) -- Phoenix -- "It was great to see Gabby Giffords at the state Capitol on Thursday. Great to see the former congresswoman, a long-time supporter of the Second Amendment, continue to fight for sensible gun laws." [emphasis added] Giffords was here with former astronaut husband Mark Kelly to launch Arizona Coalition for Common Sense, which plans to push for "sensible changes" in the state's gun laws. 3/22/17

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Words no longer hold their familiar meaning when used in the "news" media. Giffords and her husband are the leading opponents (not supporters) of everything Second Amendment supporters seek. The Giffords-Kellys are poster children for every anti-gun-rights program in the nation, admired exclusively by the left.

In a short puff piece praising the pair, a handful of vague proposals were either explicit or implied, familiar phrases from the anti-gun rights movement. Mixed in were 11 demeaning slurs aimed at citizens who keep and bear arms.

The concepts these falsely labeled gun-rights supporters propose, according to Roberts' article, include: sensible gun laws, sensible changes, enact reasonable restrictions, and introduce some sanity to our gun laws. A batch of snarky one-liners about bills introduced to expand and protect the rights of citizens tipped the balance off the charts.

Among the slurs hurled at innocent Americans who appreciate their rights this writer Laurie Roberts dislikes are: packing a pistol in their pants, nothing short of crazy, worships at the altar of the armory, you can't reason with these people, and what the gun lobby wants.

Arizona has been ranked first in the nation for good gun laws for three years in a row, by Guns and Ammo, the leading magazine in the field. Those people are among the nation's leading experts, in stark contrast to the unlicensed perpetrators who think they know something in the so-called "news" paper.

About the Author

Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.